Memeorandum

January 30, 2007

Now-Traditional Plame Open Thread

Ari testimony, 1 , 2, 3 from Marcy Wheeler - grimmer than I expected for Libby, since I had guessed the "hush-hush, on the qt" comment would be a general statement about the Wilson trip, not a specific comment about the wife.

Also, when did Libby find out her name was Valerie "Plame" [which is how Ari said Libby identified her, although he waffles on cross]? She was "Wilson" in the INR memo; Novak says he got it from "Who's Who", but he should not have passed that back to Rove or Libby by July 7.

My old stand-by guess - someone got tired or referring to "Wilson's wife" and looked her up themselves. But if Libby did that prior to July 7, his memory defense has a major problem. Same point if Libby was told that by someone (no one who has testified has called her "Plame", I don't think, but I welcome advice on this point.)

Well - we can see why the defense wants to paint the picture that Ari is part of a "Protect Karl, Dump Libby" cabal. And Ari Fleischer is describing an undocumented face to face meeting - he will never be tried for perjury if he is embellishing this story. Still, this is the better day for Fitzgerald that we had expected.

W If you look at talking points before and after there is no mention
of Mrs. Wilson. Is it fair to say that when the Novak article came
out, from your personal perspective that was not viewed as a big
article.

M It wasn't a huge revelation to me because I KNEW, I knew it was a big deal that he had disclosed it.

Wells sensibly moved on, but Fitzgerald did not come back to that on re-examination, which one might have expected. Is Fitzgerald asleep at his own trial, or was this some sort of misunderstanding? Frankly, (I paraphrase) "it wasn't a huge revelation because I knew it was a big deal" is not a phrase that makes a lot of sense to me.

But in a pinch, go to re-write: "It wasn't a huge revelation to me because I knew". And so she did - she already knew that Ms. Plame was at the CIA. Ms. Martin then follows with, "I knew that it was a big deal that he had disclosed it".

OK, how did she know it's a "big deal"? Does any of her testimony suggest that Harlow, or anyone, had warned her to keep this quiet?

Or was it a "big deal" that Novak had disclosed it because Novak was not on their target leak list and the wife was not one of their talking points, which meant (here comes the Big Deal!), that some other person or group was leaking their own story about the Wilson trip to the press. The implication would be that the message coordination had collapsed, and for a pressie, that is a big deal.

I'll stop now - as noted, this is the traditional open thread. But let me just say, the collapsed message coordination as the Big Deal is not a bad theory - hey, you try spinning this, uhh, stuff into something resembling non-stuff sometime.

UPDATE: Who ya gonna believe, Ari Fleischer or John Dickerson, then of TIME? Here is Mr. Fleischer (2):

P Were you in Uganda. Can you tell us if you had an occasion to talk to reporters by the side of the road.

Fl President walking toward second event. Meeting with young
children who were going to sing songs. A group of reporters on the side
of the road. I recall I said to these reporters, If you want to know
who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there. Tamara
Lippert Newsweek, David Gregory and John Dickerson, Time Magazine.

My inbox was a mess. In the middle of it was an e-mail from Matt Cooper
telling me to call him from a land line when I had some privacy. At
some time after 1 p.m. his time, I called him. He told me that he had
talked to Karl Rove that morning and that Rove had given him the same
Wilson takedown I'd been getting in Uganda. But Matt had the one key
fact I didn't: Rove had said that Wilson's wife sent him.

But if Ari is accurate, not only did John Dickerson know about the wife, he knew (and called the Washington bureau, but they were all busy) before Cooper talked to Rove.

Well, if Ari was making stuff up, that would have been a helpful detail for Rove, anyway. And as Mr. Dickerson notes, Fitzgerald had made a hash of the timeline in his Jan 26, 2006 letter to the defense the President was in Uganda on July 11, and Uganda is ahead of Washington, time-wise.

And how does this affect Libby's prospects? Well, if Ari is lying, that probably helps Libby. Or, if Mr. Dickerson was not fully forthcoming in his public writings and not investigated by Fitzgerald, one might wonder what other reporters are also, ahh, being parsimonious with the truth.

Since this is the age of instant information, John Dickerson has posted his reply at Slate:

I have a different memory. My recollection is that during a presidential
trip to Africa in July 2003, Ari and another senior administration
official had given me only hints. They told me to go inquire about who
sent Wilson to Niger. As far as I can remember—and I am pretty sure I
would remember it—neither of them ever told me that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA.

The July 7-10 time frame is the part that never made sense in Libby's story. He had to've known some time in that process . . . even if he was getting it confused. So his "reminder" with a reporter had to've happened earlier than that (or he had to've mentally reconstructed it that way later). The "heard it from Russert" to Rove on the 11th suggests he could've been conflating it with someone else in that general time frame. Woodward is the only known source that works with timing (though Andrea Mitchell is a possibility, I guess).

But while I suspect Ari's got some issues slightly off, I'm not willing to bet the gist of his testimony is wrong.

P Were you in Uganda. Can you tell us if you had an occasion to talk to reporters by the side of the road.

Fl President walking toward second event. Meeting with young children who were going to sing songs. A group of reporters on the side of the road. I recall I said to these reporters, If you want to know who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there. Tamara Lippert Newsweek, David Gregory and John Dickerson, Time Magazine.

P was this a formal interview?

Fl One of the many conversations I had with the press, the event was not one I had to be there. You sidle up to reporters and chat what was on their mind. Maybe this will address some of these issues about how people got sent. This backs up WH statement.

P What part of it backs up WH account?

Fl Allegation WH twisted intelligence. Amb Wilson wrote that a report had been filed. He said Cheney had played a role must be known by VP. I had been told by two WH officials, which I seemed like I should send on. VP wasn't involved in it. That's why I made a judgment to say that to the press.

P Did you statement get much of a reaction?

Fl Press's reaction was so what. Didnt' take out notebook, Didn't ask any follow-up calls.

P Metaphorically speaking?

Fl Like a lot of things i said to the press it had no impact.

Sharp as marbles, those newsies - if it don't fit the meme it didn't happen.

Fleischer: Staff cabin, Dan Bartlett, Comm Dir, reading a different document. He said, "I can't believe he or they are saying that the VP sent Amb Wilson to Niger, his wife sent him, she works at CIA. He [Bartlett] said this in front of me [Fleischer/witness].

'A group of reporters on the side of the road. I recall I said to these reporters, If you want to know who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there. Tamara Lippert Newsweek, David Gregory and John Dickerson, Time Magazine. '

This seems a very effective way to express the notion that Plame's "covert" status is not at issue in this trial. In reaction to Fleischer saying, "I didn't know she was covert!" Walton, after conference with the attornies, tells the jury ...

In reference to the Witness' testimony about what he read in the newspaper. That testimony is only relevant as it relates to his state of mind was. It has no relevance to this case. I don't know based on what has been presented to me, what her status was. It's totally irrelevant to this case.

Walton is telling the jury that he doesn't know, one way or the other.

Per EW: FLeischer: "If you want to know who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there."

Here's Dickerson on 10/31/2005:

"He [Fleischer] walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position. Why not? It certainly would have been helpful for him at the time."

...Ari testimony, round 1 from Marcy Wheeler - grimmer than I expected for Libby, since I had guessed the "hush-hush, on the qt" comment...

Doesn't that comment seem to conform with Cooper's public statements viz Rove

and I'm still confused: Grossman, Schmall, Grenier, Martin all have testified that the Plame (Wilson) business was a small detail, gossip-like hearing someone getting to meet with Tom and Penelope.

but Ari did this...

...I recall I said to these reporters, If you want to know who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there. Tamara Lippert Newsweek, David Gregory and John Dickerson, Time Magazine...

language straight from the INR memo-question, could their be another document, like a CIA document, written by Plame (kind of like her talking points) but given to Harlow...could explain the the IG meeting Grenier talked about and "...Dan Bartlett, Comm Dir, reading a different document..."

I remember something (I know) Waas writing about something about a CIA paper, concurrent with INR memo, however, the CIA note generally conformed to the Plame-Wilson version of events. Was supposed to have been briefed at about the time the "16 words meme" got started? (I'l try looking it later)

even more confusion: Why doens't the defense ever clarify when the witness has heard "Plame->CIA employee" then "Plame->Wilson's wife" then "Wilson's wife->CIA employee"?

"J Mr Libby did not use the word nepotism. You believe Mr. Libby told you the name. When you testified before the GJ you pronounced her name two different names, Plamay and Plame? If you had heard it pronounced one way or another you'd have remembered?"

I can only resort to personal experience, but when I mispronounce a name it's because I've seen it written. If I hear it, I know how to pronounce it, bbut may not recognise the connection to the written form if it's unexpected.) My own name fits this category, so I deal with the issue a LOT. When I introduce myself, people either get it right, or ask again. If I had them a card, they look at it, and almost always pronounce it wrong.

It seems really strange to me that Ari came up with two pronounciations at the stage of the GJ testimony if he first heard it spoken. Either someone else was mispronouncing it a lot in his hearing, or he saw it written early on before it locked in... or something else was going on there.

In any case it argues that the name wasn't being bandied about often or it seems to me the pronounciation would have become set.

One way to "spin" the "hush-hush" and "on the QT" part of Ari's testimony is what Ari says himself-that it was about the nepotism.

Who would want to keep that QT?

Well if the issue is nepotism-as the unimpeachable immunity given Ari attests to- then the CIA would want to cover that up and more importantly and with more motivation to-would be your trusty media darling-

Ari plays in a different sandbox than the rest of witnesses. Grossman, et al, probably did see Plame's status as just a small detail, because they saw it as not all that different than stuff they see elsewhere in the governement. Ari, more versed in the way the world views things, saw the potentialities of this as a way to discredit Wilson.

Art's testimony, considered in conjunction with the other testimony, does make the "I forgot" defense seem unlikely, doen't it? And that's true, even if we take Ari's use of the Plame name as embellishment, rather than absolute truth.

Yes, an interesting question. Is the White House on the syndicated column distribution? Ari's burst to reporters sounds like he read Novak's article and just had to run out and share since it was going into print on monday.

Eight meetings is suggestive of how important they think his testimony SHOULD be. But why it might be important might have more to do with justifying immunizing him (or getting value for immunizing him, to look at it slightly differently) that with actually ferreting out some nugget they believe he holds that is key to making the golden bracelets for Libby.

Ari read the CIA summary of the Wilson trip on the plane. Why? He was checking to see if there was anything the could declassify to help tell the story. Rice said the CIA document backed that up, so he was reading it. The report is by a CIA station officer based on the work of Wilson.

Former Nigerian PM quoted in report about Wilson's report that there was no current activities, but in June 1999 Nigerian businessman met with him to insist on a meeting with an Iraqi delegation to talk about "expanding relations," which he knew to mean uranium and yellow cake. That meeting did occur.

Fleischer, "The classified information in this report supports what the President said in the State Of The Union."

At least second instance of this -- if the original liar had not lied --ahem Wilson ahem--we wouldn't be here today. Wonder if the jury is getting this idea too?

Art's testimony, considered in conjunction with the other testimony, does make the "I forgot" defense seem unlikely, doen't it? And that's true, even if we take Ari's use of the Plame name as embellishment, rather than absolute truth.

Nice to see that Libby apparently was a fan of LA Confidential.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate | January 29, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Still not there yet. Three of the five prosecution witnesses didn't remember themselves until later. Libby didn't deny learning it, he just denied remembering it. Libby is not a press guy, he is a government policy guy. Saying Ari saw the potential and wanted to use it does not mean Libby saw the potential and wanted to use it. My guess is that Libby could even argue that they ignored it because they were already having serious problems with the CIA they wanted to smooth over. That's Martin's testemony at least. Why embarras them further with the junket bit?

In any case it argues that the name wasn't being bandied about often or it seems to me the pronounciation would have become set....

Or journalists were fishing, or the Wilsons were using various interperations of Val's name as confirmation (a combo of Valerie Elisa Plame Sesler Wilson) as they shopped their story on the DC-NYC party circuit

but it is interesting that Fleisher would use the name Plame, wonder if he has a copy of Who's Who on his bookshelf

Does anyone know when Fleischer got immunity? I'm asking because if it was any time before October 2005 (quite likely, yes?) then that means that either Larry Johnson is an even worse liar than previously known to mankind, or he got seriously snookered by someone who wanted him to look like a complete moron.

Mr. Johnson claimed a friend of Fleischer told him that Fleischer feared he was going to be indicted. If Fleischer got immunity, that wouldn't even be remotely possible, would it?

I'm trying to catch up, but is Fleischer saying he told David Gregory and John Dikerson about Wilson's wife, but Dickerson has a written account of not being told that by Fleischer - is this not the same situation between Libby and Cooper? Or am I missing something?

I suppose it's possible that it might be fishing, but that seems like a poor fishing strategy to me. When a reporter wants confirmation, I would expect him to be sure to say the name right and watch closely for body language (if expecting a "no comment" or obfuscation). Using a mispronounciation might defeat that when the first reaction of the "target" is "who?"

Likewise, based on what we've seen of the level of sophistication of Wilson's fabrications, I'l put deliberate mispronouncing of Val's name beyond him. He might use one or another of the possible names, but I doubt he'd Franglicize Plame.

Seixon, he got it before he testified before the grand jury and he testified there IIRC in Nov of 2004.

More from O'Connor:
"Post 5
When meeting with WH official Dan Bartlett several days after the lunch with Libby on July 7, 2003, Fleischer does not say anything when Bartlett’s remarks about Plame being in the CIA and having sent Wilson to Africa - despite the fact that Libby had told Fleischer that fact several days before. The defense is aggressively going after Fleischer now, in an obvious attempt to undercut the damage his earlier testimony about hearing Plame’s secret identity from Libby on July 7. “Why didn’t you tell him you had heard this before?’ the defense demands. They then quote Fleischer’s grand jury testimony again, to the effect that he simply didn’t think the revelation was so important.

F interpreted Bartlett’s statement as him saying that the CIA was incompetent in the Plame affair. Bartlett also never told him any of the information was classified in any way.

There was a lot of tension between White House and CIA over the ’sixteen words’ issue–Ambassador Wilson’s report was only one of the many problems associated with the controversy. CBS News, for example, reported that the president knew the words were false and put them into the SOTU address, nonetheless… Soon the many small problems began to merge into one huge problem…

Dan S, Miller has said that the Victoria Flame in her notes may have been a trick she used to get details from someone. That is, someone who might not want to mention Valerie Plame might be asked have you heard about Victoria Flame and being off-guard respond,"You mean Valerie Plame."
Reporters have lots of trciks to get stuff out of unwilling sources.

Ari read the CIA summary of the Wilson trip on the plane. Why? He was checking to see if there was anything the could declassify to help tell the story. Rice said the CIA document backed that up, so he was reading it. The report is by a CIA station officer based on the work of Wilson.

Was this the CIA attachment to the INR memo? The DO debrief at the Wilson home...
I am getting so confused with all this

Ari can't have it both ways on this. Either he saw it written first and then was able to pronounce it correctly or he heard it and wasn't sure of the pronunciation because everyone knows how Frenchified the Wilsons are.

Dickerson's denial (that he heard what Ari told him) seems to be a Clintonesque parsing of words: Dickerson says he didn't know her name or her position. That means he could have heard her described as Wilson's wife (but didn't know her name) and that she worked at CIA (but he didn't know her exact title).

Questions about July press gaggles conducted in Uganda during, where he mentioned the information about Ambassador Wilson's wife. Fleischer doesn't recall if the information was "on background," but it was not a secret. Tamara Lipper (Newsweek) who he (Ari) recalls walked off before the wife sending (Plame) him came up.

So why does Dickerson's account differ from this? Dickerson IIRC said he was not told about the wife - Fitz has commented on Dickerson writing this and yet Ari has said a number of times he told him - about the wife...

The memo, prepared by the State Department on July 7, 2003, informed top administration officials that the wife of ex-diplomat and Bush critic Joseph Wilson was a CIA agent. Seven days later, Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was publicly identified as a CIA operative by syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

On the same day the memo was prepared, White House phone logs show Novak placed a call to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, according to lawyers familiar with the case and a witness who has testified before the grand jury. Those people say it is not clear whether Fleischer returned the call, and Fleischer has refused to comment.

So am I getting the picture here that both Gregory and Dickerson both got a leak - Dickerson has written he didn't - Gregory side-stepped he wasn't called with a leak (It was told to my face!) , Fitz hasn't spoken to these 2 - Were Gregory and Dickerson protecting Ari Fleisher?

I think everyone got this screwed up. This comment is a mistake:
"He is reminded he misprounced her name before the gj-and says he often does that when the first time he's learned a name is when it's in writing.
Go figure that out."

I think folks are taking what Dan S said in a post and attributing some of what he said as a quote from Fleischer. Dan S said the part about the differences between reading and hearing a name NOT Ari, right?

Well Novak said he got confirmation or something from TWO administration officials IIRC-..If one of them was Fleischer how could he have done this before the Libby conversation.
OTOH he may have returned the call and told him after--we'll have to see.

Of course given the mumbo jumbo the press used to identify anonymous sources, he could have meant Harlow who did in fact confirm that to him..

In re: "He is reminded he misprounced her name before the gj-and says he often does that when the first time he's learned a name is when it's in writing."

I think it was defense counsel, not Fleischer, who brought up the possibility of mispronunciation via writing. Per EW:

J Mr Libby did not use the word nepotism. You believe Mr. Libby told you the name. When you testified before the GJ you pronounced her name two different names, Plamay and Plame? If you had heard it pronounced one way or another you'd have remembered?

Fl I didn't pay attention to the name.

J The first newspaper story that came out with her name in it was Novak's column. It had had her name as Plame. If you had read that, it would be natural you might mispronounce. Some might pronounce Plamay and some Plame?

Fl and isn't that why you don't know how it's pronounced. What difference did it make to me what her name was?

J It didn't make any difference to you. That's why you say you think, but you can't be sure about that, can you?

Fl with absolute certainty, no.

Looks like attribution in paragraph 4 needs correction, but I left it as is for quoting.

Now we understand Fitz's lack of awareness of any reporters who knew before 14 July. He never asked them after Ari's testemony. Kind of puts into doubt Fitz's honesty in some of his motions. Did he never ask Ari what reporters he told?

"J Mr Libby did not use the word nepotism. You believe Mr. Libby told you the name. When you testified before the GJ you pronounced her name two different names, Plamay and Plame? If you had heard it pronounced one way or another you'd have remembered?"
I can only resort to personal experience, but when I mispronounce a name it's because I've seen it written. If I hear it, I know how to pronounce it, bbut may not recognise the connection to the written form if it's unexpected.) My own name fits this category, so I deal with the issue a LOT. When I introduce myself, people either get it right, or ask again. If I had them a card, they look at it, and almost always pronounce it wrong.

It seems really strange to me that Ari came up with two pronounciations at the stage of the GJ testimony if he first heard it spoken. Either someone else was mispronouncing it a lot in his hearing, or he saw it written early on before it locked in... or something else was going on there.

In any case it argues that the name wasn't being bandied about often or it seems to me the pronounciation would have become set.

Indict me--it was defense counsel who asked him about the difference and Ari demurred saying the revelation was not very important to him at the time..(I can't for some reason cut and paste this). See if I now have it right.http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/?p=214

"J Mr Libby did not use the word nepotism. You believe Mr. Libby told you the name. When you testified before the GJ you pronounced her name two different names, Plamay and Plame? If you had heard it pronounced one way or another you'd have remembered?"
I can only resort to personal experience, but when I mispronounce a name it's because I've seen it written. If I hear it, I know how to pronounce it, bbut may not recognise the connection to the written form if it's unexpected.) My own name fits this category, so I deal with the issue a LOT. When I introduce myself, people either get it right, or ask again. If I had them a card, they look at it, and almost always pronounce it wrong.

It seems really strange to me that Ari came up with two pronounciations at the stage of the GJ testimony if he first heard it spoken. Either someone else was mispronouncing it a lot in his hearing, or he saw it written early on before it locked in... or something else was going on there.

In any case it argues that the name wasn't being bandied about often or it seems to me the pronounciation would have become set.

Rick - A witness overheard Novak make the call to Fleischer? Hmmm, I would think, no. He probably was in his ofice when he made the call. Unless Armitage was in his office ans said call Ari to be your source? Naw...

Or a witness overheard Ari talking to Novak? So that means Ari did indeed talk to Novak, the only other person besides Armitage that was saying [Plame, operative, CPD] PRIOR to lunch with Libby, where he claims he was told verbally, yet he misprounounced Plam'ay because he does that when he first sees a written name.

So Novak comes on the stand and says, I told Ari [Plame,operative,CPD] at 10:30 am, July 7th registered call on Ari phone log.

There is WAY TOO MUCH of this cutesie language stuff going on in this whole case.

I didn't get a call - means I was told in person.

I'd never heard of her - means by the name of "Plame," not by "Mrs. Wilson."

I didn't know where she worked - means I didn't know exactly what room she worked in at the CIA.

Et cetera et cetera et cetera. And let's not forget "no antecedent" - the use of "that," and "it" so often without saying precisely what "that" and "it" refer to.

Then Fitz takes these exactly worded statements and extrapolates them into the common sense understanding of them.

Language problems figure throughout this affair.

Elizabeth Loftus must be going crazy, if she's following this, what with every witness having invented memories because of pressure from Fitz and pressure from reading press accounts and thinking "I must have known that then."

I think Rory paraphrases to improve the narrative flow which can be helpful, but not so hot where specifics are concerned. For example he writes out "counter-proliferation division" where the actual use of "CPD" though more obscure is also more significant as a verbatim repeat of the language Armitage used.

Walton's statement that Plame's status is irrelevant was preceded and followed by comments by Fleischer referencing the "outing of a covert officer". Does this give the defense an opening to demand clarification of Plame's status, so that the jury is not poisoned??

Fl I never would have thought this was classified. never in my wildest dreams believed this involved, as I've read since, this involved a covert office.

(Walton's statement here, followed shortly by:)

Fl As I recall it was Amb Joseph Wilson's wife. I was absolutely horrified. I thought I may have played a role in outing, oh my god did I play a role in outing a CIA officer, even though I had no idea that she was classifed or covert,

Still, it appears to me to be prejudicial, and it keeps coming up. I think it'd be more fair to discuss it openly, or forbid the Prosecution from bringing it up.

He is reminded he misprounced her name before the gj-and says he often does that when the first time he's learned a name is when it's in writing.

Not sure how definite this was, but it makes a big difference. Along with hearing it on the 7th but not mentioning it until the 11th, it makes Fleischer's version a bit less plausible. He obviously got info from the INR memo (possibly second-hand), but "Plame" isn't written on it, anyway.

If the Defense can compress the timeline down a couple more days, misremembering makes some sense even without another media source. (Though I'm not ready to give up my favorite pet theory just yet!) Any real focus in early June would've been terminal for Libby . . . July 7-10 stuff far less so. Finding out Fleischer had told Cooper and Gregory (Russert's putative subordinate) on the morning of the 11th helped Libby, but overall . . . dunno.

"Back to the Libby lunch — a short conversation about Ambassador Wilson’s wife, “very matter of fact and plain-spoken,” says Fleischer.

Defense asks Fleischer about mispronouncing Plame’s name. Fleischer says he “didn’t pay any attention to her name” at that time. Defense tries to get Fleischer to say he read the name first–and didn’t hear it first from Libby. Fleischer demurs, and says her name “didn’t matter much to me.”

Can he be sure that he heard the name from Libby at the lunch? “Absolute certainty? No,” says Fleischer–a victory for the defense, it would appear…"

I think we are in the strongest part of Fitz's case here -- the idea that Libby had many contacts with people talking about Plame. The ones where Libby is told about Plame are arguably weak. But this is Libby speaking about Plame, and seemingly going out of his way to do so. (This does not look like a casual conversation -- Libby has not previously spoken to Ari, and there is no typical reason he would do so, as the OVP has its own press people.)

This one by Ari indicates that Libby made a special point of mentioning it, and after hearing it from a second source (from bartlett reading the INR memo), he thought it worth mentioning. Though, I will admit, he spends a lot of time in his testimony downplaying the significance of the info.

If this part of Fitz's case is devoted to establishing what was in Libby's mind in July, 2003, Ari has been his most effective witness.

The ONLY way Ari Fleischer would have misprounced her name is by READING it and pronouncing it incorrectly.

He does not have to say that under oath, it is called Deductive Reasoning.

You don't mispronounce a word you just HEARD.

Jeezuz.

Posted by: Enlightened | January 29, 2007 at 12:47 PM"

I think this needs qualification, Enlightened. Based on personal experience, people DO mispronounce words they just heard, even words with all English sounds. But it's not commonly the case. And NOT words that are monosyllabic and absent of sounds foreign to English (since this all takes place in English) such as... Plame.